|Publication number||US7676546 B2|
|Application number||US 10/395,238|
|Publication date||Mar 9, 2010|
|Filing date||Mar 25, 2003|
|Priority date||Mar 25, 2003|
|Also published as||CA2520193A1, EP1611495A2, EP1611495A4, EP1611495B1, US8103732, US8745146, US9083695, US20040205135, US20100306836, US20120117173, US20140250506, US20150304259, WO2004088455A2, WO2004088455A3|
|Publication number||10395238, 395238, US 7676546 B2, US 7676546B2, US-B2-7676546, US7676546 B2, US7676546B2|
|Inventors||Phillip Martin Hallam-Baker|
|Original Assignee||Verisign, Inc.|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (29), Referenced by (27), Classifications (16), Legal Events (3)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
The field of the invention is electronic messaging, and in particular the control and management of electronic messaging.
The popularity of electronic messaging such as e-mail is being marred by ever increasing amount of unsolicited messages (commonly known as “spam”) that is received by users. Spam can waste users' time, can clog users' electronic storage devices, and its shear volume can make it difficult for a user to identify messages that the user wants receive. In the process of deleting spam, a user can inadvertently delete wanted messages. Spam can contain advertisements (e.g., such as Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail (“UCE”)); deceptive and/or unlawful offers; viruses; spyware; offensive content; and other undesirable forms of information. Vast numbers of spam messages can be sent for little or no cost to their sender (“spammer”), who can take various actions to hide his true identity. For example, spammers often forge the source address of the e-mails that they send. Spam can be received in practically any medium, including e-mail, instant messaging, telephonically, etc. Practically any arena in which a party may initiate an unsolicited communication may be exploited by spammers. For example, automated and live unsolicited telephone calls is a well known technology exploited by certain spammers (e.g., telemarketers.)
Legislative measures for controlling spam have largely been stymied by constitutional concerns relating to freedom of speech. Further, it can be as easy to send spam from abroad as from a jurisdiction in which spam is controlled by law.
Blacklisting e-mails with various predetermined characteristics (e.g., from a given address, containing certain keywords, etc.) has been less than totally effective because spammers have learned to change the content and source addresses to circumvent blacklists. Further, a blacklist can also inadvertently stop wanted messages from being seen by a user, which is undesirable.
A new solution is needed to accurately and effectively solve the problems caused by spam.
In one embodiment of the present invention, a referee is used to discriminate desirable from undesirable messages. An example of this embodiment involving e-mail messages is shown in
A credential can be used by a referee to evaluate the desirability of the message. For example, the sender can include a digital signature with the message, along with the sender's certificate. The digital signature and certificate can be used by the referee to authenticate the message. This can advantageously detect messages that are purportedly sent from a first party, while actually having been sent from a second. For example, this can detect a false source address in an e-mail message.
The referee can store records in a database that correlate different certificates with various desirability levels. For example, a given certificate may be correlated with an opt-in subscription by a given user, and have a high desirability rating for that user. Alternatively, the certificate may be correlated with a known spammer, and have a low desirability rating. In either case, the referee can take an action with respect to the message based upon the results of the referee's authentication of the message and/or evaluation of the credential. For example, the referee can simply pass on a message that has been evaluated as desirable to the intended recipient. The referee can block (not forward) a message with a low desirability evaluation. A message can be “blocked” by taking an action that prevents its being considered by the intended recipient. And for intermediate ratings, the referee can associate a warning (or some other desirability indicator or rating) with the message that conveys valuable information about the desirability of the message.
Desirability information can be sent to the intended recipient, to some other entity responsible for filtering the message, such as a firewall, or to any other appropriate party. For example, the warning can indicate that the message is likely to be spam. The rating (indicator) can be a numerical rating, e.g., from 0 (least desirable) to 10 (most desirable). The indicator can be a flag set to 1 if the message is determined to be spam, and 0 if it is not. The warning, indicator or rating can be sent with the message, before the message is sent, or after the message is sent. In this way, the intended recipient may be able to opt to have the referee or another intermediary (e.g., a firewall) forward or block the message. The message can also be filed in a given folder or marked with a different sensitivity indicator (e.g., a rating, highlighted, etc.) if it is suspected to be spam.
A message between the referee and the recipient can also be authenticated. For example, a message from a referee contains message content and a authentication including a digital signature based upon the referee's private key. A digital signature (by the sender, referee, etc.) can be composed by performing a hash function on the message content and then encrypting the resulting hash with the appropriate private key. Likewise, a Message Authentication Code (MAC) can be computed for the message. For a signature, when a recipient wishes to be assured that the message was in fact sent by the referee, the recipient can obtain the referee's certificate and verify the signature. The recipient can also verify the MAC. This assures the recipient that the message is indeed from the referee, and in this example, that the message contents have not been tampered with en route between the referee and the recipient.
Key distribution in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention can be handled using a Public Key Infrastructure such as X.509/PKIX, in which certificates are issued by a certification authority; by an online key management mechanism such as XKMS; or by other means known in the art. Any suitable method or methods of authentication can be used. Another example of authentication includes a credential that includes biometric information (e.g., retina scan data; fingerprint data; iris scan data; etc.) of the sender and/or a trusted third party. Other authentication methods are known in the art and can be used to authenticate a message sent from the sender, recipient or referee.
The referee can associate a status (e.g., desirability status or rating) with respect to at least some of the senders. For example, a credential, a sender address and/or some other attribute of an e-mail identified as spam can be associated with a “good” status or “bad” status. The status can also be derived from information obtained from one or more third parties. For example, a receiver that has identified an e-mail as spam can forward the e-mail to the referee, who can then log the sender's credential, the source address, the destination address, subject line, keywords in the body of message, and/or other attributes, etc. as associated with “bad” e-mail, i.e., spam. Likewise, a receiver can send a copy of a legitimate, non-spam e-mail to the referee, who may log one or more of its attributes as associated with “good” e-mail, i.e., not spam. A given good or bad status may apply generally, e.g., to all receivers. A given good or bad status may be applied to a specific receiver or group of receivers. In this way, a referee can advantageously accommodate situations in which an e-mail message that is spam to a first receiver and not spam to a second receiver may have a “good” status with respect the first receiver, and a “bad” status with respect to the second receiver. This same technique can be applied to other types of messages, such as telephone calls. A credential such as a digital signature and/or certificate can be transmitted from a caller to a called party as part of the telephone call, or as switching information that pertains to the call. The referee can be at a switch that handles the call. Likewise, a credential can be associated with a telephone call by a trusted component at a switch that handles the call.
Likewise, a status can be associated with other parameters, besides a particular receiver or group of receivers. For example, a given source address may be legitimate if sent during certain hours or on certain days, and illegitimate otherwise. For example, the customer service department of a national retailer may only send out messages during normal business hours. A spammer may spoof the retailer's address as the source address of e-mail that is sent outside of normal business hours. In another example, an e-mail for a given source address may only be legitimate when associated with certain keywords in the body of the e-mail message. The referee may develop a status rule that assigns a “good” status to an e-mail message from a given sender if the appropriate keywords are also present in the body of the message. In another example, the referee can determine the number of other complaints received about the e-mail. If the number of complaints exceeds a threshold, the message can be classified as “bad”. As shown by these examples, the referee can develop sophisticated e-mail status determination rules that accurately classify e-mail as good or bad. These rules can be associated with a credential that can be included in the messages, and used to evaluate the desirability of the messages.
The receiver or referee can receive e-mail that either has, or does not have, a credential, such as a digital signature, certificate, etc. If the e-mail has a credential, then the recipient (e.g., the receiver or referee) can use the credential to determine the desirability of the message, e.g., to verify the sender of the message, to verify that the content of the message has not been altered without authorization since the it was generated; etc. E-mail that has a credential can be treated differently than that which does not. For example, the presence or absence of a credential can be a factor for determining if the e-mail is good or bad. If a credential does not verify properly, then the message can be classified as “bad”. A message may have more than one credential.
There can be multiple referees in accordance with the present invention. A receiver can choose which referee to consult to determine if a message such as an e-mail is good or bad. Different referees can specialize in different types of messages (e.g., commercial, private, e-mail with attachments, e-mail without attachments, etc.); employ different message status determination rules; apply different levels of strictness in evaluating messages; etc.
A referee can issue a warning to a sender when an e-mail from the sender has been identified as “bad”; when a complaint against the sender has been received; etc. A process can be established for rehabilitating an e-mail, a sender, etc. For example, a sender that has received a complaint can send a message explaining the purpose of the e-mail to the referee, who can then decide to establish or change the status of the e-mail, sender, etc., in question.
Complaints can also be evaluated by the referee using the same or other criteria as is used to determine the status of e-mail. For example, an unusual volume of complaints from a single source may render those complaints suspect. Indeed, the complaints themselves can be rated by the referee, and used accordingly.
The standing status of a sender may be communicated and responded to in many ways. For example, the referee can issue a Certificate Revocation List that revokes the digital certificate of the sender's signing key if the sender has a “bad” status. The referee can issue a limited-use token (e.g., limited number of messages; limited time period, etc.) to the sender that establishes that the sender is currently in good standing. Other certificate status notification mechanisms such as Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP), XML Key Management Specification (XKMS), etc. can also be used. In these ways, the referee can act effectively to facilitate the control of messages originating from the sender.
The receiver can obtain the standing status of the sender by querying the referee periodically (e.g., for updates to a locally stored database of status information) or each time a message is received. The status query can be relayed through a local intermediary that maintains at least a partial copy of the referee's standing records.
The status can also be stored in a distributed database. For example, status information can be stored in the Domain Name System (“DNS”) directly in DNS records, or in a separate repository linked to the DNS by any suitable mechanism, such as NAPTR and SRV. The DNS can be queried based upon, for example, the sender address in the e-mail message at question. In this sense, a message status rating or message desirability rating can be “resolved” based upon a credential of the sender, just as a domain name can be resolved into an IP address. DNS records can be secured using DNSSEC.
A message flow diagram in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention is shown in
In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a message sender class for opt-in advertising can be defined. The referee can verify that a message such as an e-mail that is sent under and opt-in this class is genuinely opt-in by requiring the opt-in process to be auditable in some fashion. For example, the referee verifies that the opt-in messages are signed by means of a digital signature using a given private key. Likewise, different classes of message sender can be established with different acceptable message criteria. For example corporations might opt for a special class that could only be used to send messages containing invoices and account status information.
Thus, examples of sender classes can include:
1) Ordinary user (e.g., expected to send no more than 50 messages per hour);
2) E-commerce server (e.g., sends invoices and receipts in bulk to many subscribers/customers; may send tens of thousands of messages per hour; and should or must normally have a preexisting relationship with each recipient;
3) Opt-in advertiser (e.g., can send advertisements that can be labeled as such, such as Acme Airlines E-fares, Latest Offer from XYZ.com, etc.;
4) Spammers; etc.
The sender classes can be implemented by issuing certificates to senders that identify each sender as belonging to one or more classes. For example, the Acme company could promise to use its e-commerce certificate only for sending account information to frequent flyer members, and to use its opt-in advertising certificate only to send advertisements to its opt-in subscribers, etc. Compliance with these agreements can be audited by a referee. If a sender violated its agreement and, say, used an e-commerce certificate to send advertisement messages, the referee could revoke the sender's certificate(s), e.g., through a Certificate Revocation List. Other penalties could be negotiated in advance by contract between the referee and the company.
The user can filter its e-mail according to the certificate class. For example, all opt-in advertisement e-mails could be directed to be stored in one folder, while e-commerce messages with account information could be directed to another.
The filtering rules can be empirical and auditable, so that the actions of the referee can be subject to scrutiny. This can provide for external checks that advantageously distinguish an embodiment of the present invention over blacklist schemes.
These embodiments are applicable to any form of electronic message, including instant messaging, telephony, video conferencing, fax messaging, etc. For example, the present invention can be implemented for a telephonic message, which includes a telephone call as well as a messages used to set up a telephone call, e.g., in the SS7 system, a PBX, etc. Further, more sophisticated rating systems can be used than establishing a good or bad status for one or more given message parameters. For example, e-mail status determination rules (rating rules) can produce a numerical measure that is assigned to a given e-mail message. For example, a rating between 0 (most likely spam) and 10 (least likely spam) can be assigned to an e-mail message. The message can then be handled in accordance with various thresholds. For example, a user can specify that it wants to see e-mails with status ratings greater than 5.0; another user may specify that it wants to see e-mails with status ratings greater than 8.5 and that are sent from a first given class of sender (e.g., from any sender at xyz.com) and greater than 1.0 that are sent from a second given class of sender (e.g., from any sender at mycompany.com).
In another embodiment of the present invention, e-mail is managed without the use of an external referee. For example, a monitor agent in a trusted component (e.g., a processor or coprocessor and/or software (e.g., firmware)) of a computer that sends messages such as e-mail can include content in a message (e.g., by modifying the credential) to indicate the velocity at which messages are being (or have recently been) sent by the sender. A trusted component is hardware and/or software that is tamper resistant. E-mail sending velocity can be the number of e-mails sent divided by the amount of time over which the e-mails are sent. A high velocity may indicate a spammer, while a low velocity may indicate a legitimate sender. Information about the velocity with which messages are being sent can be incorporated into or otherwise associated in a trusted way with a certificate by the agent in the trusted component.
In yet another embodiment, telephone spam can also be managed. In one embodiment of the present invention, authentication can be bound to a telephone device, such as a telephone switch, a sending telephone, a receiving telephone, etc. For example, a caller can send an authenticated signal indicating that the call is not spam, without revealing the caller's telephone number. Likewise, a caller (or switch) can send a velocity indicator to a called party (or third party). A high velocity indicator can indicate a greater likelihood that the call is spam.
Messages can be authenticated using a private key that is used to create a digital signature. The trusted component can be configured so that the private key can only be read by a trusted application, such as an authentication agent and/or a message control agent. The message control agent can include a complete e-mail application. It can also be a trusted component that is invoked by an untrusted application.
For example, a message control agent can update a trusted (tamper-resistant) record that indicates the rate at which signatures have been created. The credential of a message controlled by the control agent can include a trusted velocity indicator, a marker that indicates the rate at which signatures were being created at the time the credential was generated. The trusted component can ensure that only the appropriate entity (e.g., the message control agent) can read the private key used to generate the credential, or modify the velocity record data. Each time the message control agent creates a signature containing a trusted velocity record indicator, it can update the velocity record.
A receiver can use the trusted velocity indicator that it receives with e-mails to sort the e-mail. Messages whose velocity indicator shows that the sender recently sent a very high volume of e-mail may be considered suspect. For example a velocity indicator that indicated the sender had sent 10,000 e-mails in the past hour can be rejected. For example, it is unlikely that a sender who is not a spammer would send more than a few tens of messages an hour.
Any suitable velocity indicator may be used. It can be easy to calculate, require a minimal amount of storage, and provide an indication of the velocity with which messages are sent in a way that most appropriately meets the requirements of each situation. For example, the number of time queries could be tracked for each successive predetermined period of time, and the average number of messages sent within the last time period could be computed. This can also be compared with the average number of messages sent for one or more of the preceding time periods. This comparison can give a sense of the message acceleration, i.e., change in velocity, over time. A high acceleration can indicate a sudden transmission of a large number of messages, which could indicate a spammer.
An adjustable time decay parameter can be built into the velocity indicator to change its sensitivity to the rate at which messages are being sent. For example, a counter-like parameter c′ can be calculated to be
c′=c+e −(p/(t′−t), where
When p is smaller than the number of seconds between the sending of subsequent messages, c′ is incremented less than one. When p is much larger than the time between messages, then c′ is incremented a value about equal to one. In other words, the value of a successive message arrival exponentially decreases over time. For example, if p is set to two seconds and the next message is sent an hour ((t′−t)=3600 seconds) after the last, then c′ will be approximately equal to c. On the other hand, if p is set to one day (p=86,400) and a message is sent one minute after the last ((t′−t)=60 seconds), then c′ will be approximately equal to c+1. The parameter p can be heuristically likened to the size of the time period of interest. The foregoing examples show that in relation to a period of interest equal to two seconds, a message that is sent an hour after the last was sent is not particularly interesting, i.e., c′ is about equal to c. For a period of interest equal to one day, a message sent one minute after the last increments the counter by a value of 1. The counter c′ can be used as a sort of velocity indicator by dividing c′ by the amount of time since c′ has been counting messages, or by any other suitable measure of time (e.g., (c′−c)/(t′−t)). Likewise, the counter c′ may be used as a sort of velocity indicator itself.
The trusted message control agent can apply limits on the rate at which a sender can create e-mails. For example, the message control agent can allow a sender to create signatures at a very high rate but only for a short period of time. This can allow a sender to occasionally send out invitations to a meeting with a large number of attendees without being identified as an spammer. Likewise, this would prevent the sender from sending significant volumes of spam. Limits that can be placed on the sender can be stored as a trusted velocity control record, e.g., by the trusted message control agent. For example, two velocity control records can be applied that have time decay constants of 1 hour and 1 day, with thresholds set to allow a sender to issue up to 500 messages in an hour but not to exceed that threshold more than an average of 2 times a day.
An embodiment of the present invention can be deployed on any configuration of hardware and software that includes a trusted component. For example, the trusted component can safeguard the confidentiality of the private key used to generate a credential for sent messages, and control its use. The trusted component can be implemented as trusted hardware/firmware and a trusted operating system such as that proposed by the Trusted Computing Alliance and the Microsoft Palladium project. Alternatively, signing functions can be performed by an auxiliary processor providing some degree of tamper resistance such as a smartcard, a USB-based token or any trusted peripheral, such as a trusted cable modem, gateway, switch or router.
An embodiment of the present invention is shown in
A referee can be used to verify messages sent in bulk, e.g., with free e-mail services such as those provided by Hotmail and Yahoo! Messages sent from such a service can include a velocity indicator that is authenticated with, e.g., a MAC. The MAC can be used to verify the whole message, or, in the case of bulk messaging services, to verify only a limited number of message headers, e.g., just enough to ensure that a party could not simply take a message header and velocity record and abstract it. This can advantageously reduce what would otherwise be a massive processing overhead on the bulk message service. The MAC can be verified by callback to the sender of the message. The callback can include the MAC and its key, and the sender of the message can be asked to verify that it created the MAC. The callback messages can be authenticated using a signature that need only be created for users of the callback service, thereby saving processor and network resources. The callback messages can also be verified using a shared secret between the receiver of the message and the callback authentication service. In one embodiment, the sender of the message can create the MAC, and a third party service provider to which the user can connect can verify the MAC. The present invention can be applied to any form of messaging where an unsolicited message can be sent. It can also apply to other situations where a commonly shared resource can be degraded because little or no cost for doing so is applied to one or more of its users. For example, a party that has a fixed capacity network connection to a site can permit other parties to make use of unused network capacity, e.g., through a wireless link such as 802.11b, provided that such usage is reasonable and does not negatively impact the offering party's usage. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a velocity indicator can be incorporated into the protocol used to connect by a trusted component at the connecting user. The velocity indicator can show how often the given user has taken advantage of the unused bandwidth, how much traffic the user sent over unused bandwidth, etc. Access to users seeking to use unused bandwidth can be limited based upon their past behavior.
Similarly, network usage rates can be charged based upon velocity indicators. For example, network usage cost can be based upon the rate at which the network is used. The usage velocity indicator can be used to set the amount a user is charged for network usage, based upon the rate at which that user has recently used the network. Velocity record information can be exchanged using a suitable protocol, such as SIP (Session Initiation Protocol), for applications such as telephony and voice over IP. The velocity record can be formed as an independent signed block inside the message signature or as an attribute of the message signature.
The present invention can be implemented on one or more computers, each of which includes a processor coupled to a memory. The processor can be a general purpose processor, such as the Pentium IV processor manufactured by the Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif.; an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (“ASIC”) that embodies at least part of the method in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention in hardware and/or firmware; or a combination thereof. Memory stores instructions adapted to be executed by the processor to perform the method in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. If implemented on more than one computer, the computers can be coupled by a network, such as Local Area Network (LAN), a Wide Area Network (WAN), the Internet, etc.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US6460050 *||Dec 22, 1999||Oct 1, 2002||Mark Raymond Pace||Distributed content identification system|
|US6748422 *||Oct 17, 2001||Jun 8, 2004||Ebay Inc.||System and method to control sending of unsolicited communications relating to a plurality of listings in a network-based commerce facility|
|US7089241 *||Dec 22, 2003||Aug 8, 2006||America Online, Inc.||Classifier tuning based on data similarities|
|US7174368 *||Mar 25, 2002||Feb 6, 2007||Xante Corporation||Encrypted e-mail reader and responder system, method, and computer program product|
|US7222157 *||Nov 27, 2002||May 22, 2007||Aol Llc||Identification and filtration of digital communications|
|US7249175 *||Apr 12, 2000||Jul 24, 2007||Escom Corporation||Method and system for blocking e-mail having a nonexistent sender address|
|US7290035 *||Dec 29, 2004||Oct 30, 2007||George P. Mattathil||Email sender verification system|
|US7293063 *||Jun 4, 2003||Nov 6, 2007||Symantec Corporation||System utilizing updated spam signatures for performing secondary signature-based analysis of a held e-mail to improve spam email detection|
|US7293065 *||Nov 18, 2003||Nov 6, 2007||Return Path||Method of electronic message delivery with penalties for unsolicited messages|
|US7293171 *||Jan 21, 2004||Nov 6, 2007||Microsoft Corporation||Encryption to BCC recipients with S/MIME|
|US7299261 *||Feb 20, 2003||Nov 20, 2007||Mailfrontier, Inc. A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Sonicwall, Inc.||Message classification using a summary|
|US7359948 *||Dec 21, 2004||Apr 15, 2008||Yahoo! Inc.||Automated bulk communication responder|
|US7406506 *||May 18, 2007||Jul 29, 2008||Aol Llc||Identification and filtration of digital communications|
|US20010049745 *||May 3, 2001||Dec 6, 2001||Daniel Schoeffler||Method of enabling transmission and reception of communication when current destination for recipient is unknown to sender|
|US20020026487 *||Aug 13, 2001||Feb 28, 2002||Ogilvie John W.L.||Self-removing email verified or designated as such by a message distributor for the convenience of a recipient|
|US20020029248 *||Mar 16, 2001||Mar 7, 2002||Cook Jon L.||Method and systems for providing a secure electronic mailbox|
|US20020120600 *||Feb 26, 2001||Aug 29, 2002||Schiavone Vincent J.||System and method for rule-based processing of electronic mail messages|
|US20020181703 *||May 31, 2002||Dec 5, 2002||Logan James D.||Methods and apparatus for controlling the transmission and receipt of email messages|
|US20030041126 *||Aug 28, 2001||Feb 27, 2003||Buford John F.||Parsing of nested internet electronic mail documents|
|US20030158960 *||Nov 22, 2002||Aug 21, 2003||Engberg Stephan J.||System and method for establishing a privacy communication path|
|US20030200334 *||Mar 13, 2003||Oct 23, 2003||Amiram Grynberg||Method and system for controlling the use of addresses using address computation techniques|
|US20040024823 *||Aug 1, 2002||Feb 5, 2004||Del Monte Michael George||Email authentication system|
|US20040073617 *||Sep 4, 2003||Apr 15, 2004||Milliken Walter Clark||Hash-based systems and methods for detecting and preventing transmission of unwanted e-mail|
|US20040111480 *||Oct 31, 2003||Jun 10, 2004||Yue Jonathan Zhanjun||Message screening system and method|
|US20040148356 *||Oct 4, 2003||Jul 29, 2004||Bishop James William||System and method for private messaging|
|US20040177120 *||Mar 7, 2003||Sep 9, 2004||Kirsch Steven T.||Method for filtering e-mail messages|
|US20070038718 *||Oct 17, 2006||Feb 15, 2007||Advenix Corp.||Systems and methods for online marketing and advertising on e-mail systems|
|US20070174402 *||Mar 16, 2007||Jul 26, 2007||Terrance A. Tomkow||System and method for verifying delivery and integrity of electronic messages|
|US20080147808 *||Aug 20, 2007||Jun 19, 2008||Pang Stephen Y F||System for policing junk e-mail messages|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8103732||Jan 22, 2010||Jan 24, 2012||Verisign, Inc.||Methods for control and management of electronic messaging based on sender information|
|US8201254 *||Aug 30, 2005||Jun 12, 2012||Symantec Corporation||Detection of e-mail threat acceleration|
|US8239219||Mar 15, 2002||Aug 7, 2012||Google Inc.||Method and apparatus for providing availability of airline seats|
|US8386559 *||Feb 1, 2008||Feb 26, 2013||Miyowa||Method for exchanging requests between the computer application of a mobile terminal and an instantaneous messaging server|
|US8543432||Feb 1, 2011||Sep 24, 2013||Google Inc.||Competitive availability tools|
|US8560356||Aug 20, 2008||Oct 15, 2013||Google Inc.||Method and apparatus for providing availability of airline seats|
|US8621217||Sep 19, 2008||Dec 31, 2013||Jose J. Picazo Separate Property Trust||Method and apparatus for trusted branded email|
|US8745146||Jan 13, 2012||Jun 3, 2014||Verisign, Inc.||Control and management of electronic messaging|
|US8781864||May 4, 2010||Jul 15, 2014||Google Inc.||Anticipatory presentation of travel information|
|US9083695||May 13, 2014||Jul 14, 2015||Verisign, Inc.||Control and management of electronic messaging|
|US9384348 *||Jan 16, 2013||Jul 5, 2016||James A. Roskind||Identity theft countermeasures|
|US9450754||Mar 1, 2013||Sep 20, 2016||James A. Roskind||Data privacy|
|US20020133382 *||Mar 15, 2002||Sep 19, 2002||Ita Software, Inc.||Method and apparatus for providing availability of airline seats|
|US20080167906 *||Jan 5, 2007||Jul 10, 2008||De Marcken Carl||Support for flexible travel planning|
|US20080167907 *||Jan 5, 2007||Jul 10, 2008||Carl De Marcken||Cache poller for providing travel planning information|
|US20080167910 *||Jan 5, 2007||Jul 10, 2008||De Marcken Carl||Providing travel information using a notification service|
|US20080167912 *||Jan 5, 2007||Jul 10, 2008||De Marcken Carl||Providing travel information using cached summaries of travel options|
|US20080168093 *||Jan 5, 2007||Jul 10, 2008||De Marcken Carl||Providing travel information using a layered cache|
|US20080312977 *||Aug 20, 2008||Dec 18, 2008||Ita Software, Inc.||Method and apparatus for providing availability of airline seats|
|US20090013197 *||Sep 19, 2008||Jan 8, 2009||Harish Seshadri||Method and Apparatus for Trusted Branded Email|
|US20090068989 *||Feb 1, 2008||Mar 12, 2009||Francois Colon||Method for exchanging requests between the computer application of a mobile terminal and an instantaneous messaging server|
|US20090234682 *||May 29, 2009||Sep 17, 2009||Ita Software, Inc., A Delaware Corporation||Method and apparatus for providing availability of airline seats|
|US20090271226 *||Jul 6, 2009||Oct 29, 2009||Ita Software, Inc., A Delaware Corporation||Cache poller for providing travel planning information|
|US20100153143 *||Jul 14, 2009||Jun 17, 2010||David Baggett||Availability processing in a travel planning system|
|US20100305983 *||May 4, 2010||Dec 2, 2010||Ita Software, Inc., A Massachusetts Corporation||Providing Travel Information Using Cached Query Answers|
|US20100306836 *||Jan 22, 2010||Dec 2, 2010||Verisign, Inc.||Control and Management of Electronic Messaging|
|US20110191127 *||Feb 1, 2011||Aug 4, 2011||Ita Software, Inc., A Massachusetts Corporation||Competitive Availability Tools|
|U.S. Classification||709/206, 713/154|
|International Classification||H04L9/32, H04L12/58, G06F17/30, G06F, H04L9/00, G06F7/00, H04L12/54, G06F15/16|
|Cooperative Classification||H04L51/12, H04L63/08, H04L65/1079|
|European Classification||H04L29/06M2S3S, H04L51/12, H04L12/58F|
|Mar 25, 2003||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: VERISIGN, INC., VIRGINIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HALLAM-BAKER, PHILLIP MARTIN;REEL/FRAME:013902/0894
Effective date: 20030324
Owner name: VERISIGN, INC.,VIRGINIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HALLAM-BAKER, PHILLIP MARTIN;REEL/FRAME:013902/0894
Effective date: 20030324
|Mar 18, 2013||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Sep 11, 2017||MAFP|
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 8TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1552)
Year of fee payment: 8